17 



of the forest and shade trees appears to have suffered more than usual. 

 In Albany, and other cities and towns in the State, the white marked 

 tussock moth, NotoJojjJius leucostigma Sm.-Abb., and the elm leaf-beetle, 

 GaleruceUa luteola Miiller, have been more injurious than "usual. In 

 the rural districts the tent caterpillars have wrought havoc in orchard 

 and forest. 



Eriocampoides limacina Betz. — The cherry or pear tree slug causes 

 more or less injury from year to year in New York State; especially is 

 this true in nurseries. During the inspection of nurseries last autumn 

 indications of its presence on pear trees were the rule, and in some cases 

 the foliage had been materially injured. Last June Thomas Tupper, of 

 Corning, N. Y., reported serious injury by this insect to both his cherry 

 and pear trees. 



Byturus unicolor Say. — The latter part of May Dr. Peck, the State 

 botanist, brought me several beetles belonging to this species, with the 

 statement that from one to five were to be found in many of the open- 

 ing buds of his raspberry plants, where they were evidently feeding. 

 This insect does not appear to have been noticed in the State since 

 Dr. Fitch gave a brief account of it in his fourteenth report for the year 

 1870, although Dr. Lintner records in his eighth report for the year 1891 

 its receipt from Few Haven, Conn., where it had been injuring leaves 

 and buds of the raspberry. 



Elaphidion villosum Fabr. — Complaints of injuries by the oak or 

 maple tree pruner have come from several localities the present season. 

 Serious injuries were reported from Lake George and also from Oakes, 

 Ulster County, where its operations had been observed for several 

 years past. 



GaleruceUa luteola Miiller. — The prolificacy of the imported elm leaf- 

 beetle was brought very forcibly before me by certain studies made in 

 connection with the preparation of Bulletin 20 of the Few York State 

 Museum. The last day of May I captured two beetles, well distended 

 with eggs, and determined to ascertain for myself the number they 

 would produce. One was confined in a small, corked vial and the other 

 in a jelly tumbler. As might be expected, there was considerable dif- 

 ference in the number of eggs deposited, the former producing 431 and 

 the latter 623. A portion of the discrepancy was probably due to dis- 

 parity of conditions and the remainder must be attributed to a varia- 

 tion in capacity. In order to bring certain points out clearly, I have 

 tabulated the record. 



7184— No. 17 2 



